1) A discovery of a logo in the LogoWorks company portfolio which is a direct rip from a logo by Mark Fox - LOGOWORKS.com or LOGOWORST.com?
2) HOW forum members look closely at LogoWorks and come up with more, which are included in LOGOWORKS.COM RIP-OFFS.
3) 'The Prepared Mind' becomes the top blog/podcaster during the saga, coining the phrase 'LogoWorks or LogoJERKS?'
4) CMO, LogoWorks steps in and starts posting on the HOW mag forum. The exchange quickly deteriorates. "Now you went and pissed our designers off."
6) Interview with a LogoWorks designer "I know for a fact that a regular practice is to find a logo that already exists and merely change it a bit and send it off.."
7) LogoWorks states they are putting better checks and balances into play, but "our sheer volume (over 30,000 customers) makes this issue particularly challenging for us" will indeed be an interesting challenge. I imagine many people around the internet will be watching to see what exactly gets put into place as it seems a near on impossible task to accomplish given their business model (see Robert Wurth's article LogoWorks: Who is to Blame? for a rounded look at the problem).
A couple of words from Robert Wurth, Creative Director of Freshly Squeezed Design
The following is a combination of thoughts and opinions as gathered from my recent postings on the About.com graphic design forum:
First of all, a little background as I understand it just to put my comments into perspective: The company LogoWorks has been viewed with a critical eye by the design community for some time now, but recently it was noticed that some of the logos displayed in their online gallery were actually the work of designers not affiliated with the company. Naturally, this caused a flurry of reaction and accusations.
When Jeff Kearl, the Chief Marketing Officer for Arteis (LogoWorks' parent company) responded to this issue, he tried to downplay all of the accusations, especially the issue of plagiarism. His claim was that these images were never sold to clients and were only presented as "concepts" in order to gain insight into the final direction various projects should take.
That's a nice try, but it doesn't wash.
First of all, no where on the web site does it explain that some of the images may not be "final" logos. They are all presented as though they were sold designs. Second, it doesn't make a difference if those designs were sold or not. The issue is that LogoWorks is (or was) using artwork it did not create in order to promote its business.
In his response, the Mr. Kearl went on to explain that LogoWorks takes originality very seriously and claimed that he felt his company had a better system of checks and balances than many other agencies. He said that LogoWorks employs a team of experts to validate every design, but then admitted that with the sheer volume of work they do that it was possible that some unoriginal work would "slip through" and that those offending designers would be dealt with.
Again, this explanation doesn't work.
Mr. Kearl claims that their 'community of designers' has produced over 250,000 designs, yet they only display a relatively small handful of designs on their web site (approximately 300-400). Just from within this sampling, about 9 examples of 'borrowed' designs were found. That means that about 1 in every 44 logos in their promotional gallery was plagiarized. If that's a typical rate, then given the number of logos Mr. Kearl cited, there could be over 5,600 examples of ripped off logos in their portfolio. Furthermore, if they are so strict in their policing of designs, why aren't they applying their most diligent searches to the logos they choose to use for self-promotion?
Mr. Kearl further went on to say that he doesn't see LogoWorks as competition to the "serious" designers. Their niche is within the small business market, who don't necessarily have a need for in-depth logo and branding efforts. I'm sure this is also why LogoWorks claims to have worked for Disney, because they are the typical small business that doesn't need in-depth branding efforts. In fact, LogoWorks specifically goes out of their way on their web site to compare their services to those offered by "professional design firms." Their marketing intentionally implies that they provide the SAME service as a design firm, but at a fraction of the cost.
After seeing Mr. Kearls response to all of this, it's clear to me that LogoWorks is trouble. Either they know exactly what they are doing and how it harms the design industry, or they are totally oblivious to the way this industry works.
Still, for all of their faults, there is one area in which LogoWorks has managed to excel and that in providing the perception of excellent customer service. One of the quotes from their web site says that after spending $4000 at an ad agency for a logo he didn't like, one customer came to LogoWorks and got just what he wanted.
Unfortunately, this is able to happen because there is an awful lot of arrogance in our industry. And I'm talking about the real "our shit don't stink" kind of self-absorbed nonsense. I can name three ad agencies just in my own city (Lincoln, Nebraska) who carry the very distinct attitude that their clients should consider themselves LUCKY that the agency "lowered" itself to work with them.
And these agencies typically attract two types of clients: 1) The group who really falls for that crap and DOES consider themselves lucky to get whatever little design scraps the agency tosses at them (in between the high-profile jobs they REALLY want to be doing), and 2) The group who quickly become disillusioned and jaded to the entire design industry.
These agencies typically charge very high prices. They typically have a small stable of "prestige" clients who get all of the attention and service, while the remainder of the clients get the "attitude."
Those non-prestige clients are the ones who spend $4000 on an identity design and aren't happy with it -- because the agency said, "here's what you're going to get and you're going to like it," but they never bothered to actually LISTEN to what the client wanted. These people are understandably pissed -- and they will tell everyone they know about what a miserable experience they had working with an ad agency.
And this is where LogoWorks steps in and manages to get it right. LogoWorks has them fill out a questionnaire all about themselves and their business (the ad agency didn't do this). Then LogoWorks promises to put several designers on the job, each dedicated to coming up with concepts based on what the CLIENT said they needed, wanted and liked (again, the ad agency never did this). Then LogoWorks has the designer of the selected logo make up revisions to suit the client's whims and requests (and AGAIN, the ad agency never did this).
Now, we in the design community know that not all designers and agencies are like this. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get press about good experiences, while negative experiences spread like a virus. LogoWorks has been able to exploit this negative perception and spin it to their own advantage.
The point is that regardless of what we think or know to be true, LogoWorks has created the PERCEPTION of great customer service (evidenced by the quotes on their site on the write-ups in publications). Meanwhile, just as the cliched perception of lawyers is that they are all ambulance chasers, many people tend to think that all of us designers are just arrogant assholes.
It's my opinion that some of LogoWork's practices are unethical (if not illegal -- namely using artwork that isn't theirs for their own self promotion). However, one thing they do have going for them is an image of customer service -- an image many designers and agencies live up to, but that our industry as a whole is severely lacking in.
It may not be possible to beat LogoWorks at the pricing game, but they can certainly be defeated in the realm of client service and long-term value.
Robert Wurth,
Creative Director
Freshly Squeezed Design
